Smalia. Perfect location for a rigged 9/11 spectacular to justify a global (NWO) navy

Run_to_da_hills

looking at the press over the last number of days, Piracy is getting out of hand off the coast of Somalia, Even the presence of international navies has no effect on these guys.

Currently an oil-laden Saudi super-tanker the Sirius Star with an international crew of 25 is awaiting its faith. This ship is one of the biggest supertankers in its class.



There are heavily armed insurgents from Islamic factions building up along the coast with an interest in this ship. Also along the coast there are Navies from Russia, the EU, US, India. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/21/africa/somalia.php

What would happen if this ship or one similar exploded in another well photographed rigged 9/11 type spectacular with the loss of everyone on board? A huge environments catastrophe, Of course Islamic insurgents getting the blame, global panic to rapidly usher in a special international task force to police the worlds oceans.

King Mob

Why would the NWO need to cause a panic to send in a navy?
Why would the public care about a tanker in the Indian ocean let alone panic?
Why would they need public support to send a task force anyway?
Why are you worried about increased naval security of the coast of Somalia?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Why would the NWO need to cause a panic to send in a navy?
Why would the public care about a tanker in the Indian ocean let alone panic?
Why would they need public support to send a task force anyway?
Why are you worried about increased naval security of the coast of Somalia?

Why should the public care about the Twin Towers, ah, sure it only happened in New York. :rolleyes:

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why should the public care about the Twin Towers, ah, sure it only happened in New York. :rolleyes:

Maybe because it was the biggest terrorist attack ever?
Maybe because it was one of the few times America had been attacked on home soil?
Maybe because 3000 people died in a city where an attack like that was far from anyones minds?

Going to answer my other questions or just ignore them as usual?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Going to answer my other questions or just ignore them as usual?

The reason I don't answer most of your questions is because most of them are so damn stupid and dont warrent answers :rolleyes:

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The reason I don't answer most of your questions is because most of them are so damn stupid and dont warrent answers :rolleyes:

Oh you mean the ones asking for evidence and stuff?


But maybe you can tell me why the NWO doesn't just make a task force and not tell anyone, cause they can control the media and things?

Do all your posts have to end in :rolleyes:?

Shazbot

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The reason I don't answer most of your questions is because most of them are so damn stupid and dont warrent answers :rolleyes:

Alot of his questions deserve answers after all the paranoid stuff you post on here. You constantly scare monger and then avoid the replys to your threads tending only to pick snipets of the responses and attack them.

Care to add weight to your arguements or just constantly avoid the questions?

Borderline trolling in fairness. Adding nothing to a discussion rather than mocking someones questions.

Run_to_da_hills

Shazbot wrote: »

Alot of his questions deserve answers after all the paranoid stuff you post on here. You constantly scare monger and then avoid the replys to your threads tending only to pick snipets of the responses and attack them.

Care to add weight to your arguments or just constantly avoid the questions?

Borderline trolling in fairness. Adding nothing to a discussion rather than mocking someones questions.

I come up with a possible scenario which is currently in the news headlines. I merely suggest that such an incident could be hijacked by Global Powers and this guy starts to bombarding me with questions just for the sake of argument just like what he has being doing constantly with myself and other posters.

And King Mob, people are concerned about Piracy in the Indian Ocean,

It effects Shipping lanes and is already causing shipping companies to divert around Cape Hope adding to the cost of sea freight. It is treatening the lives of innocent people.

The price of oil is already under threat, Insurance premium for shipping, Piracy finances terrorism, Piracy finances more sophisticated artillery for future raids, If a tanker of such size was blown to pieces the ecological damage would be unthinkable. Parts of the Somalia coast are not too far from the Red sea.

Piracy is also illegal and could draw up further conflict. If this went unchecked it could spread and has being.

If you say that this has no significance why is there such a large international navy force present?

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I come up with a possible scenario which is currently in the news headlines. I merely suggest that such an incident could be hijacked by Global Powers and this guy starts to bombarding me with questions just for the sake of argument just like what he has being doing constantly with myself and other posters.

And I'm just pointing out that your scenario isn't very likely for the points above.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And King Mob, people are concerned about Piracy in the Indian Ocean,

It effects Shipping lanes and is already causing shipping companies to divert around Cape Hope adding to the cost of sea freight. It is treatening the lives of innocent people.

The price of oil is already under threat, Insurance premium for shipping, Piracy finances terrorism, Piracy finances more sophisticated artillery for future raids, If a tanker of such size was blown to pieces the ecological damage would be unthinkable. Parts of the Somalia coast are not too far from the Red sea.

Piracy is also illegal and could draw up further conflict. If this went unchecked it could spread and has being.

If you say that this has no significance why is there such a large international navy force present?

So why exactly would increased naval presence be a bad thing?

Why would it be a new world order scheme?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly would increased naval presence be a bad thing?

It is not a bad thing if it helps to fight this scourge, You have several international navies present and the opportunity of drawing more depending on the nationalities of the ships that are hijacked. IE if an Israeli frigate gets Hijacked there is a possibility of drawing in the Israeli Navy. India is already involved. Many of these nations are not a part of any internatiional offiliation such as the UN.

King Mob wrote: »

Why would it be a new world order scheme?

Just as 9/11 bonded aviation security around the world and invoked biometric chipped passports, A major incident in at sea in Somalia could well be another step towards global cooperation against marine terrorism.

More global agreements towards a one world government do get it? :rolleyes:

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is not a bad thing if it helps to fight this scourge, You have several international navies present and the opportunity of drawing more depending on the nationalities of the ships that are hijacked. IE if an Israeli frigate gets Hijacked there is a possibility of drawing in the Israeli Navy. India is already involved. Many of these nations are not a part of any internatiional offiliation such as the UN.

Heaven forbid a country protects it citizens and their property.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Just as 9/11 bonded aviation security around the world and invoked biometric chipped passports, A major incident in at sea in Somalia could well be another step towards global cooperation against marine terrorism.

Well piracy is not marine terrorism, it's piracy.
And why exactly would they need to panic the public to increase naval presence in the area?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

More global agreements towards a one world government do get it? :rolleyes:

Oh I forgot anything any government does is working towards a one world government.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Well piracy is not marine terrorism, it's piracy.
And why exactly would they need to panic the public to increase naval presence in the area?

"Piracy is robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on shore, without permission from a nation". If it involves RPGS and automatic weapons I would certainly classify it as marine terrorism.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh I forgot anything any government does is working towards a one world government.

Like signing our constitution away through another Lisbon Referendum..

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Piracy is robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on shore, without permission from a nation". If it involves RPGS and automatic weapons I would certainly classify it as marine terrorism.

Ever look up the definition of terrorism?
You probably should.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Like signing our constitution away.

Yea if there was actually anything that would do that.
Luckily there isn't.

brianthebard

Piracy has existed for centuries, and this sort of event is nothing new in the 21st century. For that reason it only pops into the news when something extraordinary happens, like the taking of said super tanker. If there were any plans to make a navy taskforce it would've already happened under NATO or some other group. Even if there were such plans they would bankrupt the West, which is why piracy is still allowed exist at all-it simply costs too much to fight.

Gordon

911? Are they planning on slowly ramming the Empire State building or something?

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

looking at the press over the last number of days, Piracy is getting out of hand off the coast of Somalia, Even the presence of international navies has no effect on these guys.

Currently an oil-laden Saudi super-tanker the Sirius Star with an international crew of 25 is awaiting its faith. This ship is one of the biggest supertankers in its class.



There are heavily armed insurgents from Islamic factions building up along the coast with an interest in this ship. Also along the coast there are Navies from Russia, the EU, US, India. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/21/africa/somalia.php

What would happen if this ship or one similar exploded in another well photographed rigged 9/11 type spectacular with the loss of everyone on board? A huge environments catastrophe, Of course Islamic insurgents getting the blame,

hang on you're saying that Islamic extremists exist, do you believe Al Qaeda exists?

global panic to rapidly usher in a special international task force to police the worlds oceans.

You do realise that there is a global international task force already in existence? An India warship recently destroyed a Somalia pirate ship, while a British ship recently killed several pirates and handed the rest over to Kenyan authorities.
[/QUOTE]

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why should the public care about the Twin Towers, ah, sure it only happened in New York. :rolleyes:

Exactly. It happened in New York.

To put this in comparison....

America was involved in Somalia, fighting what would by today's benchmarks be classed as terrorists. Did the world care when US troops lost their lives there? Not really - they probably got more worked up about it when they saw Black Hawk Down then they did when the events actually happened.

In 2007, America bombed a village in Somalia. Did the world care? No...again, they'd probably care more if a film were made about it.

Today, the Somalians have branched into piracy. They've taken in the region of 100 ships this year including a supertanker. Does the world care? Well, currently, the media and the military seem more concerned about the lives of the crew then about the massive quantities of oil in the ship. Again, if a film is made about it someday, it'll probably stir up more outrage/emotion than the ongoing events....even if the ship blows up and all hands are lost.

If you want the public to care about a shipping disaster....then do it on the American coast, not the Somalian.

Mahatma coat

if the oil spills into the ocean how much should we expect the price of a barrel to rise by?

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if the oil spills into the ocean how much should we expect the price of a barrel to rise by?

1 tanker? Not very much even if at all.

javaboy

King Mob wrote: »

1 tanker? Not very much even if at all.

That tanker represents more than one quarter of Saudi Arabia's oil output apparently. So it would have some minor direct impact on prices. More significant though would be the cost of increased security and the knock on in oil prices from that.

Mahatma coat

so they wont pass the cost of the cleanup on to us at the pump? very magnanamous of them?

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

That tanker represents more than one quarter of Saudi Arabia's oil output apparently. So it would have some minor direct impact on prices. More significant though would be the cost of increased security and the knock on in oil prices from that.

Plus the extra cost of diverting around the Cape Hope which will add extra time and time to the transportation of fuel and goods to the US.

Oil companies will look for any excuse to jsck up their fuel prices and this is a good one.

This route will also effect the cost and timing of imorts & exports between Europe, China Japan, India, Australia etc.

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Plus the extra cost of diverting around the Cape Hope which will add extra time and time to the transportation of fuel and goods to the US.

Oil companies will look for any excuse to jsck up their fuel prices and this is a good one.

This is a made up excuse?

This route will also effect the cost and timing of imorts & exports between Europe, China Japan, India, Australia etc.

So hang on a sec, your argument is that if the tanker is destroyed it will be used to create a NWO navy, which as RtdH telling us, is a bad thing.

Alternatively ships will just have to avoid the region entirely leading to an increase of costs a bad thing.

Why don't we just have the NWO navy fight the pirates?

javaboy

Diogenes wrote: »

Alternatively ships will just have to avoid the region entirely leading to an increase of costs a bad thing.

Why don't we just have the NWO navy fight the pirates?

Yet again RTDH only manages to convince me what a good thing the NWO would actually be. He always seems to draw attention to the benefits of the very thing he is railing against.

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

Yet again RTDH only manages to convince me what a good thing the NWO would actually be. He always seems to draw attention to the benefits of the very thing he is railing against.

Again I could write a book about the benifits of RFID, likewise about the benefits of a global merchant navy.

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again I could write a book about the benifits of RFID, likewise about the benefits of a global merchant navy.

I know you told me before. I told you to write them and I'd promise to buy a copy.

But seriously you always seem to come up with tangible reasons why technology/policy X would be a good idea and only intangible unsubstantiated reasons why it wouldn't.

Can you please explain to me in point form the pros and cons of a global navy? Almost all I see are pros.

King Mob

javaboy wrote: »

That tanker represents more than one quarter of Saudi Arabia's oil output apparently. So it would have some minor direct impact on prices. More significant though would be the cost of increased security and the knock on in oil prices from that.

It's one quarter of day's production according to the BBC
Alot but an earth shattering amount.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so they wont pass the cost of the cleanup on to us at the pump? very magnanamous of them?

Well it hasn't spilled yet nor is it likely to.

Do normal oil spills add to the cost of petrol?

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

I know you told me before. I told you to write them and I'd promise to buy a copy.

But seriously you always seem to come up with tangible reasons why technology/policy X would be a good idea and only intangible unsubstantiated reasons why it wouldn't.

Can you please explain to me in point form the pros and cons of a global navy? Almost all I see are pros.

A Global navy would just be the start of it. Every craft afloat would have to be registered on a global database even down to pleasure craft. (Just like all EAN/UPC/RFID on global consumer products).

All cargo's must be etagged with track and trace so if they ever go astray they could be traced.

All correspondence monitored and recorded through a global database.

All crew and intending passengers must have their microchipped passports swiped prior to any sea going voyage. This information would be transmitted to the central database on a regular basis through out the voyage.

All ships and must log into this global data base of their cargo and intended destination.

All ships and pleasure craft must carry GPS beacons and satellite tracking mechanism.

Failure to any of the above would be a breach of local / international law could be treated as an act of terrorism or war and drastic action taken.

Massive increase in Global policing and surveillance throughout the globe.

All sounds wonderful, could you imagine if Hitler or Stalin having control of such technology to monitor the seas during his reign. You would have no escape and no where to go if you wanted to resist the system.

Remember it will soon come to a time when you will not be able to board a train, plane, travel on a bus, cross a border without swiping your NWO RFID smartcard. Refugees escaping Hitlers regime regularly used sea craft to escape Nazi occupied Europe.

In this up and coming NWO regime it will not be so easy to escape..

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A Global navy would just be the start of it. Every craft afloat would have to be registered on a global database even down to pleasure craft. (Just like all EAN/UPC/RFID on global consumer products).

All cargo's must be etagged with track and trace so if they ever go astray they could be traced.

All correspondence monitored and recorded through a global database.

All crew and intending passengers must have their microchipped passports swiped prior to any sea going voyage. This information would be transmitted to the central database on a regular basis through out the voyage.

All ships and must log into this global data base of their cargo and intended destination.

All ships and pleasure craft must carry GPS beacons and satellite tracking mechanism.

Failure to any of the above would be a breach of local / international law could be treated as an act of terrorism or war and drastic action taken.

Massive increase in Global policing and surveillance throughout the globe.

All sounds wonderful, could you imagine if Hitler or Stalin having control of such technology to monitor the seas during his reign. You would have no escape and no where to go if you wanted to resist the system.

Remember it will come to a time when you will not be able to board a train, plane, travel on a bus, cross a border without swiping your NWO RFID smartcard. Refugees escaping Hitlers regime regularly used sea craft to escape Nazi occupied Europe.

In this up and coming NWO regime it will not be so easy to escape..

Right a global navy would just be the start of it, fine. But if a global navy is such a bad thing, why can't you tell me why that is instead of changing the subject and throwing in red herrings? Very few of your points above relate directly to a global navy which is what I was asking about.

Bringing in issues like NWO RFID smartcards is just muddying the waters and distracting from the question at hand. Fair enough if you see a global navy as a stepping stone to pave the way for a more unified approach to military and global infrastructure in general but as a standalone thing, what is wrong with a global navy?

P.S. Do you really believe that say for example, failing to log one of containers to the central database will ever be "treated as an act of terrorism or war and drastic action taken"?

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

Right a global navy would just be the start of it, fine. But if a global navy is such a bad thing, why can't you tell me why that is instead of changing the subject and throwing in red herrings? Very few of your points above relate directly to a global navy which is what I was asking about.

Bringing in issues like NWO RFID smartcards is just muddying the waters and distracting from the question at hand. Fair enough if you see a global navy as a stepping stone to pave the way for a more unified approach to military and global infrastructure in general but as a standalone thing, what is wrong with a global navy?

P.S. Do you really believe that say for example, failing to log one of containers to the central database will ever be "treated as an act of terrorism or war and drastic action taken"?

No its all relevant. The New World Order is all about enforcing law and order throughout the world through a single governing body.

A Global navy is useless unless there are measures laid down for it to act on and take the necessary steps. Just as there are limits layed down for our own waterways such as fishing limits and off shore territory .

A Global navy would be in charge of policing drug traffic, piracy and illegal migration. In order for them to do so laws must be put into force such as the registering of all marine craft, logging of cargo, passenger identification and route tracking. I don't see where the problem is about mentioning "red herrings".

Sofa_King Good

seems as if a "global navy" would benefit some more than others;

http://www.pr-inside.com/israeli-revealed-as-owner-of-south-sudan-bound-weapons-ship-r850322.htm

http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7407

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article7099